British MPs are pressing ahead with implementing a controversial bill requiring phone and internet companies to retain their customer’s data for up to a year granting security services unprecedented access to it.

The data retention and
investigatory powers bill (DRIP), would give British security
services access to an unprecedented level of metadata, including
records of phone calls, emails and social media activity.

The bill would also force non-UK companies like Yahoo and
Facebook to hold information on web activities if their users are
based in Britain.

Following a debate in Parliament held on Tuesday, MPs in two
separate votes approved both the bill and the timetable for its
implementation. The bill will now be debated in the House of
Lords on Wednesday before becoming law.

Written up as ‘emergency legislation’ following US warnings of
terror attacks on Western soil, Home Secretary Theresa May said
the bill was designed in the interests of national security.

MPs debated the content of the bill following amendments made by
May last week acknowledging the need for more security over the
information of British citizens.

Full list of 51 MPs who voted to do their legislative job
properly on #DRIP, and 441
who voted against: http://t.co/ShzgPjcUDs (scroll
down)

Despite calls for debate to be continued during Parliament’s
summer recess, due to start on July 22, the bill is expected to
be fast-tracked to the House of Lords on Wednesday, and to be
made law by Friday.

The bill was proposed by the home secretary last week after
months of negotiations between coalition partners the
Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. While the bill has garnered
support from all three political parties, it has been heavily
criticized by civil liberties campaigners.

#DRIP
is in the Commons later today. We'll be posting updates on the
"debate". In case you missed it here's our blog https://t.co/7J64VtDCdO

Director of Liberty Shami Chakrabarti said that MP’s haven’t been
given enough time to scrutinize DRIP, telling BBC news that they
needed “more than three days to look at such an important
issue.”

"I appreciate that this data can be vital in serious criminal
investigations, but what's been going on increasingly is that
because it's possible to capture more and more of everybody's
data, the government is building a bigger and bigger
haystack” Chakrabarti said.

Internet freedom campaigners also attacked the government’s
proposals, suggesting that the DRIP bill was framed as ‘emergency
legislation’ in order to get it passed without it being studied
by the ECJ.

“Examples from recent history show the democratic process
being used and abused in times of 'emergency', which result in
bad laws or laws with unintended consequences. With the scale and
reach of the security services together with the rapid evolution
of technology, caution and thought is urgently needed when
introducing legislation that affects the very core of our
fundamental freedoms” said Mike Rispoli, communications
officer of Privacy International.

Just voted against ramming the whole emergency surveillance law
in one day. Abuse of parliament. Insult to the intelligence of
MPs #DRIP

The DRIP bill had been drawn up after the UK’s existing laws on
web surveillance were knocked down by the European Court of
Justice in April, on the grounds that it could infringe the right
to privacy guaranteed under EU law.

Senior MPs also criticized the government’s desire to fast-track
the bill, saying that such measures infringe on the democratic
process.

Former Tory Shadow Home Secretary David Davis told ministers that
MP’s could not debate on the DRIP bill in one sitting.

"This seems to me entirely improper because the role of
parliament, we have three roles. One is to scrutinize
legislation, one is to prevent unintended consequences and one is
to defend the freedom and liberty of our constituents. This
undermines all three and we should oppose this motion" he
said.

Labour MP Tom Watson, who has been a vocal critic of covert web
surveillance, also hit out at the government, saying that the
timetabling of the bill was “insulting” to Parliament.

“[This is] democratic banditry resonant of a rogue
state" he said.

In the week leading up to the debate, leading academics and
researchers, from universities including Oxford and Cambridge
wrote an open letter to the House of Commons urging them to
rethink DRIP, arguing that the bill in its current form was a
"serious expansion to the British surveillance state"

" DRIP attempts to
extend the territorial reach of the British interception powers,
expanding the UK’s ability to mandate the interception of
communications content across the globe. It introduces powers
that are not only completely novel in the United Kingdom, they
are some of the first of their kind globally" they
wrote.